MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921022826 · doi:10.21273/hortsci.44.2.362

Combined Analysis to Characterize Yield Pattern of Greenhouse-grown Red Sweet Peppers

2009· article· en· W1921022826 on OpenAlexaff
Wei-Chin Lin, Dietmar Frey, Gordon D. Nigh, Cheng Ying

Bibliographic record

VenueHortScience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGreenhouse Technology and Climate Control
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouseYield (engineering)Regression analysisLinear regressionMathematicsHorticultureCapsicum annuumStatisticsPepperBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the irregular yield pattern of greenhouse-grown sweet peppers ( Capsicum annuum L.) has been a challenge to researchers and greenhouse producers. Experimental data from 4 years, each consisting of 26 production weeks, were used in a time series analysis, neural network (NN) modeling, and regression analysis. Time series analysis revealed that weekly yield was influenced by yields from the preceding 2 weeks (Yd_1 and Yd_2), cumulative light 2 and 4 weeks prior (L_2 and L_4), and average 24-h air temperature 5 weeks prior (T_5). Cumulative light (L) data were transformed into kL by dividing by 1000 for subsequent NN modeling and regression analysis. These five inputs were used to establish a NN model, which illustrated the positive influence of Yd_1, kL_4, and kL_2 and negative influence of Yd_2 and T_5. Again, these five inputs were used in a regression analysis illustrating the positive influence of Yd_1 and the negative influence of Yd_2. Each input was further modified to include its squared value before entering the regression, which resulted in significant inputs of Yd_1, Yd_1 squared, and Yd_2 squared. Among these three analyses, the most consistent parameters were Yd_1 and Yd_2, confirming that the irregular yield pattern of greenhouse-grown peppers is of a biological nature. Environmental factors kL_2, kL_4, and T_5 did not show a consistent effect on yield in all three analyses, indicating yield pattern is less influenced by growing environment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHortScienceSame topicGreenhouse Technology and Climate ControlFrench-language works237,207